Now, it will come as no surprise to those of you who know of my Geology and Geophysical curriculum at Yale to learn that I get a bit hot under the collar any time I hear the following two words, though guiless on their own, used in combination: Intelligent and Design.
Which is why I couldn’t stop laughing when Scalzi turned me on to this news report from a Pennsylvania trial in which some parents are suing a local school board for making their biology teachers read a “disclaimer” before teaching the theory of evolution. It’s about how the local whackjob bio professor from Lehigh was forced to admit on the stand that ID is in no way, shape, or form what science calls “a theory.”
Here’s the money shot:
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology…Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, [emphasis Diana's] claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.
Hypothesis or theory?
Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.
Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”
“You’ve got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. “But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class.”
I’ll marry you, too, Slade. But, in an interesting aside, the college that lets him teach a biology class has a huge, honkin’ disclaimer on their website saying that they all think he’s, um, wrong. Respectfully of course. (Read: Nutjob). I’m just shkaing my head. My brother almost went here, you know. And if I had a brother who was in danger of getting taught freshman bio by this quack, I’d yank him out of school so fast his keg would leave skidmarks.
Anyway, I can’t stop laughing at this fellow. He’s made up his own definition of “scientific theory.” Must be nice to live in his world. Right now, I’m in the process of making up my own definition of “work week.”
What I’m not laughing about is how many people, lacking the scientific training to understand Darwin and/or scientific jargon, actually buy into this ID crap. And are forcing our children to learn it. Our schools are having enough trouble as it is, folks. Please let’s not work to make our kids stupid.
Eric, darling, I’m waiting. Nothing gets me hotter than a Lawyer Against Intelligent Deisgn. Just ask Sailor Boy.
October 20th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
I have nothing more pithy to add other than, “I agree with you totally, 100%.”
Intelligent design, or rather, the attitude of those who propose it, is making me nuts.
[Reply]
October 21st, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Just think about how I feel. That trial is about a school district that’s local to me, but not, thank God (pun intended!!!), the one my kids are in.
I consider Faith and Religion two separate things, and the idea of Someone Making Us doesn’t seem any different to me than the idea of Apollo dragging the sun across the sky.
ID has its place in mind-provoking discussions, but it definitely belongs in sociology classes, not science classes.
[Reply]
October 23rd, 2005 at 1:01 pm
I tend to get crazy when hearing this – but then I thought, Darwin is right – there is the survival of the fittest. And if you equate ‘the fittest’ with ‘the best educated’ (in these modern days and in modern terms) then Americans may just get their noses rubbed in the proverbial sh*t.
[Reply]